The politics of faith
By Lisa Fabrizio
web posted April 25, 2005
This country was, in no small part founded from the pulpit. Many
colonial ministers urged support for the American Revolution and
some actually fought in that conflict. A sermon by David Jones of
Philadelphia in 1775 exhorted, “We have considered the
alarming call, which we have to take up arms; let us unite as men
possessed of a true sense of liberty....If ever there was one time
that called for more religion than another, this is the very time.”
Had Mr. Jones uttered these words today he would no doubt
have been condemned as both a religious fanatic and a chicken
hawk. He also would have been threatened with the loss of his
church’s tax exempt status, provided of course, that his words
were in support of President Bush.
Just decades ago, when various religious faiths combined to
eliminate the evil of segregation they were applauded. But today,
when similar groups unite to call on the Senate to end the equally
odious tyranny of the judiciary, heads must roll. That this new
moral majority would even think of using their right of peaceable
assembly to encourage their representatives do their job is
repugnant in certain circles.
In liberal land, the thinking goes like this: If a majority of
Americans seek a change in direction they must be denied by the
courts for their own good. But when a tiny sliver of the minority
seeks change it must be granted them by a handful of judges for
the nation’s good. This phenomenon used to be referred to as
the ‘tyranny of the minority’, but is now simply known as the
New York Times editorial policy.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist spoke by satellite this past
weekend on a telecast sponsored by the Family Research
Council called “Justice Sunday,” to protest Democrat filibusters
of President Bush’s judicial nominees. Many of the FRC’s
members are regular church-goers and therefore, in Times-
speak, intolerant by default.
In taking Frist to the woodshed, the Times, in unintended hilarity
actually opined, “It is one thing when private groups foment this
kind of intolerance. It is another thing entirely when it's done by
the highest-ranking member of the United States Senate, who
swore on the Bible to uphold a Constitution that forbids the
imposition of religious views on Americans.” In the coming
secular nation one supposes the volume of choice for oath-taking
might be The Da Vinci Code.
The Washington Post took offense at a statement made by an
organizer of FRC, that some of the president’s nominee’s are
being blocked because they are “people of faith.” At the mere
mention of the “f” word, the Postswooned, “But it will be a
distressing new low in the debased debate over judges if the
Senate leader appears at an event predicated on slander, unless
he makes clear that he does not condone such slander.”
It’s hard to find any instance of liberals suffering similar bouts of
the vapors when numerous Democrats appear at events
sponsored by the folks at the NAACP whose chairman said of
the president, "(He) selected nominees from the Taliban wing of
American politics, appeased the wretched appetites of the
extreme right wing and chosen Cabinet officials whose devotion
to the Confederacy is nearly canine in its uncritical affection."
Or when Democratic leaders like Al Gore, Harry Reid, Edward
Kennedy, Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer,
Patrick Leahy, Charles Schumer and Robert Byrd speak in front
of the banner of MoveOn.org, a far-left PAC that promoted
Bush-as-Hitler TV ads last year. So dependent are Democrats
on the George Soros-backed cash cow that the AP recently ran
a story called, “MoveOn to Democratic Party: 'We Own It'.”
But let a Republican speak at Bob Jones University and it’s
Katie bar the devotional door. Yet photo-ops of Democrats
brown-nosing black ministers are a staple of any major
campaign. The media has no problem when these ministers lobby
for liberal candidates directly from the pulpit yet they chastise the
Catholic Church for advising its members not to vote for pro-
abortion candidates in general.
So even as liberals like Kerry and Kennedy are lauded when
they profess their faith while frequently acting to legislate in
violation of its tenets, conservatives who profess and act on the
tenets of their faith are singled out for a trip to the political pillory.
The idea being, that it’s permissible to talk about faith but
actually letting it guide your life and deeds is now taboo. Mr.
Kerry himself sums this up nicely: “I think that everything you do
in public life has to be guided by your faith, affected by your
faith, but without transferring it in any official way to other
people."
Lisa Fabrizio is a columnist who hails from Connecticut . You
may write her at mailbox@lisafab.com .
Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com